Relationship between person with dementia and adolescents: A preliminary survey of the Association Between Children and Dementia Elders (ABCDE) Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to clarify the relationship and psychological reaction of person with dementia and their grandchildren by administering aquestionnaire to the primary caregiver.Methods: A total of 109 caregivers of people with dementia in outpatient enrolled in this study. Questionnaire collected information on age, gender, cognitive severity(Mini-Mental State Examination), clinical diagnosis, relationship of the caregiver, frequency of meeting with grandchildren, and reaction of person with dementia tospending time with their grandchildren and/or great-grandchildren, and vice versa.Results: Eighty-four people had at least one grandchild (77.1%) and a quarter lived with their grandchild and/or great-grandchild. Age of grandchildren increasedwith increasing age of person with dementia; frequency of seeing each other decreased with increasing age. While most people with dementia were reported to lookhappy when spending time with their grandchildren (94.5%), young people tended to be more non-reactive (26.0%). Non-reactive grandchildren were more prevalentin the older dementia age group (p < 0.001). Nevertheless, the majority of grandchildren (74.0%) enjoyed spending time together.Conclusions: People with dementia enjoy spending time with their grandchildren, although older grandchildren are less reactive in these situations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".